*It wouldn't be very fair to mention Obama since his term is quite a distance from termination. How about we stick to presidents of the past*

I vote Woodrow Wilson.

ignored the Constitution, entered the U.S to into a war that was not necessary, instituted a draft, created 5,000 propaganda boards, took complete government dominion over the American market, censored antiwar speeches, essays, editorials, and imprisoned and repressed opposition of any kind to that war, all the while done to purport American ideals and influence in Europe and protect its financial interests....a racist, and showed no particular interest in the women's rights mvt.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

George Washington. He had slaves yet spoke out against slavery. What a hypocrite! And anyone who wants to "uphold the values of our founding fathers" need to think twice. The "founding fathers" had no good moral values. They had slaves.

At 9/18/2011 10:52:29 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:George Washington. He had slaves yet spoke out against slavery. What a hypocrite! And anyone who wants to "uphold the values of our founding fathers" need to think twice. The "founding fathers" had no good moral values. They had slaves.

How does that make him the worst president? People kept slaves for so long because they were taught and grew up with the belief that it was perfectly okay. No one ever actually questions what their parents taught them, or questions tradition and authority and tries to identify them with what is moral. Its human stupidity and fear that causes that. You can't individually blame GW for an amoral tradition of Europe and joint cooperation with Africa. Its just human stupidity. That also does not really make him worse than Wilson.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 9/18/2011 10:52:29 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:George Washington. He had slaves yet spoke out against slavery. What a hypocrite! And anyone who wants to "uphold the values of our founding fathers" need to think twice. The "founding fathers" had no good moral values. They had slaves.

You have to understand that they lived in a different time period. That's like saying nobody in the early 1900s had moral values because they thought poorly of blacks and homosexuals. You would have had the same mindset if you grew up in the same atmosphere.

I'm no fan of the secession, but Abe Lincoln did not need to be any more hard on the South. Remember that these people despised the union and that Lincoln had the job of reuniting the North and South, imposing harsh punishments on the Southerners would only have made an incubator for further disdain among southerners.

Franklin Roosevelt - Prolonged the Great Depression (Any president could have been in charge and won WW2)

Lyndon Johnson - Implemented a defeatist policy in the Vietnam War by not allowing U.S. forces to bomb Hanoi or invade North Vietnam and implementing many socialist programs under the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty"

@quarterexchange and 000ike, so what if their parents taught them that having slaves was fine, does that make it okay? It was not as if he was a kid at the time. Even after he grew up and could think for himself, he continued having slaves. Do you really think that he was so brainwashed that he never understood that it was wrong to do that?

While many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, they certianly weren't proud of their slavery. Jefferson even tried to write in anti-slavery rhetoric to the Declaration of Independence, but the South wouldn't let him, and in the interest of fighting the British, they decided to delay the issue of slavery for future generations.

At 9/18/2011 11:33:02 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:@quarterexchange and 000ike, so what if their parents taught them that having slaves was fine, does that make it okay? It was not as if he was a kid at the time. Even after he grew up and could think for himself, he continued having slaves. Do you really think that he was so brainwashed that he never understood that it was wrong to do that?

It was a different society...your grandparents probably thought (or still think) that it's ok to hate black people or homosexuals for being what they are. Does that mean we shouldn't respect them? I certainly don't think so. We can disagree with those aspects while still admiring them as people. Same with the founding fathers as far as I'm concerned

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 9/18/2011 11:33:02 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:@quarterexchange and 000ike, so what if their parents taught them that having slaves was fine, does that make it okay? It was not as if he was a kid at the time. Even after he grew up and could think for himself, he continued having slaves. Do you really think that he was so brainwashed that he never understood that it was wrong to do that?

It doesn't make it fine but it certainly doesn't make them bad people. And yes they were brainwashed, simply by looking that many kindhearted and sane people believed in slavery for hundreds of years. It's not that everyone was evil, it's that they grew up in a different time and were taught different things.

At 9/18/2011 11:33:02 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:@quarterexchange and 000ike, so what if their parents taught them that having slaves was fine, does that make it okay? It was not as if he was a kid at the time. Even after he grew up and could think for himself, he continued having slaves. Do you really think that he was so brainwashed that he never understood that it was wrong to do that?

It was a different society...your grandparents probably thought (or still think) that it's ok to hate black people or homosexuals for being what they are. Does that mean we shouldn't respect them? I certainly don't think so. We can disagree with those aspects while still admiring them as people. Same with the founding fathers as far as I'm concerned

I don't think the analogy between founding fathers and grandparents is accurate. If your grandfather had three children, X, Y and Z, and he made Y and Z slaves to himself and X and hated them, abused him etc, would you still respect him if you were X's son? Would you respect him if you were Y's or Z's son? Assume now that the descendants of X, Y and Z have equal rights and are friendly. This analogy would be more accurate with X being whites, Y being blacks, Z being any other race. Of course, X, Y and Z should all respect each other but none should follow the values of the slaveholding grandfather.

This I disagree with. FDR was not accepting of the non-interventionism that pervaded the US prior to the war, and actively sought out to help his future allies. Lend-lease supplied Russia with so much in raw material and FDR is widely ackowledged both as having superb foresight and strong diplomatic abilities.

This I disagree with. FDR was not accepting of the non-interventionism that pervaded the US prior to the war, and actively sought out to help his future allies. Lend-lease supplied Russia with so much in raw material and FDR is widely ackowledged both as having superb foresight and strong diplomatic abilities.

I'd also make the point that while the U.S. did make an enormous contribution to the war effort, Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded the Soviet Union seeing that the majority of German forces were destroyed by the Red Army, with the Battle of Kursk claiming more lives than every single U.S. casualty in every war in U.S. military history combined.

This I disagree with. FDR was not accepting of the non-interventionism that pervaded the US prior to the war, and actively sought out to help his future allies. Lend-lease supplied Russia with so much in raw material and FDR is widely ackowledged both as having superb foresight and strong diplomatic abilities.

I'd also make the point that while the U.S. did make an enormous contribution to the war effort, Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded the Soviet Union seeing that the majority of German forces were destroyed by the Red Army, with the Battle of Kursk claiming more lives than every single U.S. casualty in every war in U.S. military history combined.

Agreed. It was only a matter of time before Soviet Russia beat Germany. They didn't need America at all.

This I disagree with. FDR was not accepting of the non-interventionism that pervaded the US prior to the war, and actively sought out to help his future allies. Lend-lease supplied Russia with so much in raw material and FDR is widely ackowledged both as having superb foresight and strong diplomatic abilities.

I'd also make the point that while the U.S. did make an enormous contribution to the war effort, Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded the Soviet Union seeing that the majority of German forces were destroyed by the Red Army, with the Battle of Kursk claiming more lives than every single U.S. casualty in every war in U.S. military history combined.

Anyhow FDR would have likely been tried for treason if he refused to declare war on Japan after the bombings of Pearl Harbor, and then Germany declared war on the U.S. in return, so we were dragged in more than we were actually lead in, unless you count cutting off trade to oil to Japan after the news of the Japanese massacres in China as some sort brilliant diplomatic manuever.

This I disagree with. FDR was not accepting of the non-interventionism that pervaded the US prior to the war, and actively sought out to help his future allies. Lend-lease supplied Russia with so much in raw material and FDR is widely ackowledged both as having superb foresight and strong diplomatic abilities.

I'd also make the point that while the U.S. did make an enormous contribution to the war effort, Germany was doomed as soon as they invaded the Soviet Union seeing that the majority of German forces were destroyed by the Red Army, with the Battle of Kursk claiming more lives than every single U.S. casualty in every war in U.S. military history combined.

Agreed. It was only a matter of time before Soviet Russia beat Germany. They didn't need America at all.

I wouldn't say they didn't need us at all, but yeah, the men of the Red Army should be given a hell of a lot more credit than they get. A "Saving Private Ryan" version of the Battle of Stalingrad would be more than most people could stomach.

Yes, the effort of the Red Army in pushing back the Nazis is indisputable. Any President would have been "dragged into war" by Pearl Harbor. What neither of you have mentioned is the incredible amount of economic sent to Britain and the USSR by the US, and this aid was occurring well before the US entered the conflict. We're talking over 15 million pairs of boots and almost 400,000 trucks and the full list can be found online.

William Henry Harrison. I don't know how anyone could call a president worse than him, he was a massive disappointment.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

Yes, the effort of the Red Army in pushing back the Nazis is indisputable. Any President would have been "dragged into war" by Pearl Harbor. What neither of you have mentioned is the incredible amount of economic sent to Britain and the USSR by the US, and this aid was occurring well before the US entered the conflict. We're talking over 15 million pairs of boots and almost 400,000 trucks and the full list can be found online.

Britain did nothing comparable to the USSR in terms of fighting the Nazi's, despite recieving much more in aid.

Britain got over 30 billionThe USSR got 10 billion.

I'm not disputing that the U.S. helped and that U.S. aid did not save the lives of many Soviets and Brits, but without it I find it hard to believe that the Soviet Union could have been taken over. Mere weather killed Germans and destroyed tanks at a phenomenal rate and by the time Stalingrad was reached supply lines were thinned, forces were dwindling, etc simply because of the weather. To suggest that they could have pushed onward successfully is very far fetched, since it would only get colder. Regardless, the military campaign in Russia required millions upon millions of men, tanks, aircraft, and tons of supplies, and it was doomed. They would have never been able to recover, even if they pushed the soviets to fight with their bare hands.